""..placing them on a pedestal of purity and suggesting they need protection and guidance ...""

Ye Gods !! was one vacated by Dworkin when she carked;

pure as a porker rolling in ........

"We expected social hierarchy support to lead to greater hostile sexism among men than among women."

But off course they do expect that, we always expect men to be more hostile in everything...

The study also indicates that women show a strong preference for benevolent sexism (BS)

Affirmative action and chivalry?

"Women have a direct stake in the ongoing effort to create a more just society and men can benefit greatly when the women in their lives become more empowered and fully engaged partners, colleagues, and fellow citizens,"

Ok.. Now here is where this really becomes junk science.
For starters, men are not considerd fellow citizens nowadays, being considerd human doings rather than beings.
Secondly, women have enough of this crap they call empowerment with all their ridiculous laws like IMBRA, VAWA, 'equality bills' etc...

The most idiot notion here is that men will benefit if women can go even more on an empowerment trip... fully engaged partners? This is nonsense, women will never be equal partners if they do not behave as such. If they constantly need to vilify males and excert blatantly false sexism (feminism) towards men... how can they be equal partners when they behave as men are the inferior gender? We have seen how men have 'benefitted' from women's 'empowerment'...
Your wive can call 911 and you will get incarcecated no matter what e.g., that's what they call empowerent... it's merely the measure in wich a woman can control a man... Right, so according to this junk research we need more of that... Such nonsense.

If a woman wants to be an equal partner or even considerd as such, she should start acting as one and show some mutual respect.

Most academics live in their own narcissistic fantasy bubble. The premise of a "gender hierarchy" that favors men is total bullshit. They speak of socially punishing women for not following their supposed gender roles, yet we live in a society that enforces the male gender role of provider and protector at GUNPOINT!!!!
A guy that is paying child support and loses his job, gets behind in payments and then goes to jail isn't an example of punishing the deviation from a gender role?
A guy who doesn't sign up for the selective service at the age of 18 faces five years in jail, $500,000 in fines and the loss of his citizenship status yet the fact that this doesn't apply to 18 year old women isn't an example of punishing the deviation from a gender role?


This is why you just can't argue with a feminist. Their cognition of basic factual reality is fundamentally flawed. They ALWAYS validate their own views in their own minds and the truth is at best an inconvenience and is usually their mortal enemy.

The study, published in the journal of Sex Roles, also found women show a strong preference for benevolent sexism -- portraying women as relatively weak, placing them on a pedestal of purity and suggesting they need protection and guidance -- over hostile sexism, the derogatory portrayals of women.

Hold the f#ck up here.

The derogatory portrayals of women? For decades now studies have shown men being negatively portrayed in 90+% of all media depictions (one study I recall 98%. Let's not forget politics mirror this!). Maybe an update is needed here to correlate the propagandists with that annoying thing called REALITY!

Yes, women dominate benevolent sexism (they have it frigging copyrighted). But the audcious claim of hostile sexism, once the social gambit of men - has now been totally overun by females aping the worst excesses of a minority of males under the guise of empowerment.

Hostile female sexism has now become the driving tool for media and political success, such is it's chic social acceptability.

Well done ladies (input massive doses of sarcasm regarding the descriptive), modern women can now claim benevolent and hostile sexism as being predominantly attributed to them.

The researchers said both hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are harmful, because both support a gender hierarchy that limits and marginalizes women.'

So where women are clear beneficiaries through chivalry and the pussy pass for instance (benevolent sexism), they are still simultaneously victims whilst trumpeting the supremacy of women (chauvinism) and how pathetic men are (derogatory portrayals). Gotcha.

Also, given that the so-called research has been conducted by a university (one also has to look as to who funded it, and the credentials of the researchers, peer review etc) it calls into question the credibility of such data - given the undue influence of a self-serving ideology such as feminism being introduced into the realm of scientific expediency. Does gender orientated data that hails from any university have any more credibility than that from the Nazi regime in WW2?

Quote from Celtic Druid

Hold the f#ck up here.

Yes, women dominate benevolent sexism (they have it frigging copyrighted). But the audcious claim of hostile sexism, once the social gambit of men - has now been totally overun by females aping the worst excesses of a minority of males under the guise of empowerment.

Hostile female sexism has now become the driving tool for media and political success, such is it's chic social acceptability.

Well done ladies, modern women can now claim benevolent and hostile sexism as being exclusively attributed to them.

WE know these women are full of shit even THEY know they're full of shit.

It just isn't constructive to point out their bullshit excessively unless there's an purpose or an objective for doing so. We need to start strategizing and enjoying our lives without them.

We need to go against society's social norms.

Quote from Popadibs

WE know these women are full of shit even THEY know they're full of shit.

It just isn't constructive to point out their bullshit excessively unless there's an purpose or an objective for doing so. We need to start strategizing and enjoying our lives without them.

We need to go against society's social norms.

Dibbs has a great point here. It is incumbent upon men to "unplug" as stated in one of the MGTOW podcasts and refuse to engage in the cookie cutter social constructs made for them.
I am a firm believer in the marriage strike even though I do not want to limit myself totally to a life without a wife if I find a woman who is worth it. THERE IS A VERY SLIM CHANCE OF THAT and it's not because I think all women are bad but because there is just too much of a legal risk. Too many people get those two concepts confused.
I also think that men need to stop watching TV so much. Why give those people money by buying products that they advertize?
Men need to stop spending money on women in order to get laid.
Men need to take back our education system from the feminists.
Men need to support a male birth control pill so we can regain control of our own reproductive processes.
As individuals men need to refuse to be swayed by any female opinion of them as a man and define their manhood themselves.
All men need to join the Men's Rights Movement.

Quote from Zuberi

...sexism is a form of social hierarchy that is beneficial to men and detrimental to women.

Hold up... look folks, we have a new redefinition on our hands.

According to these guys, sexism is defined as a hierarchy that is beneficial to men & detrimental to women.

But, looky here:

discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex
Wordnetweb

Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th centuryShorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edition, refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other. ...
Wikipedia

The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender; Unfair treatment or discrimination based ...
Wiktionary

Bias against a certain gender.
Sex Ed 101


And of course, coming straight from a feminist resource, we have:

defines the ideology of male supremacy, of male superiority and of beliefs that support and sustain it. Sexism and patriarchy mutually reinforce one another.
RuralWomyn



What is it with pro-feminists and their need to redefine words?

What is it with pro-feminists and their need to redefine words?

you need to redifine reality in order to make people blind to it.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html